Month: November 2007

It’s been a hectic week, what with deadlines, Thanksgiving, and everyone in my house being sick, but I wanted to at least mention that it’s my blogiversary! Yes, it was one year ago today that I started this blog. Thank you to all who read and comment — it’s fun talking with you.

Noted without comment, because I saw this about 3 seconds before I was going to log off and go to bed:

The results, appearing in the online edition of the peer-reviewed journal Sex Roles, show that for both women and men there was a benefit to having a feminist partner. Feminist women were also more likely than others to be in a romantic relationship.

“If you’re a woman paired with a male feminist,” said Rudman, “you have a healthier relationship across the board”–better in terms of relationship quality, equality, stability and sexual satisfaction.

“And men paired with female feminists have greater sexual satisfaction and greater relationship stability,” she said. “So, [there were] higher scores on two of the four dimensions, with no difference on the other two.”

LifeSite reports on Tim Kaine’s cancellation of state funding for abstinence-only sex education.

Victoria Cobb, executive director of the Family Foundation of Virginia, said Kaine “professes to be a moderate and a man of faith, yet he is taking this very liberal, extremist position. The governor is choosing politics and playing to his base.”

(Kaine’s position, by the way, is that “effective sex education programs must include information about contraceptives as well as abstinence.”)

The article continues:

Another survey found that eight of 10 Virginia parents want their children to be taught abstinence as part of a comprehensive sex-education program. (emphasis added)

Doesn’t really take much to be a liberal extremist these days, does it?

So, the National Right to Life Committee is endorsing Fred Thompson (PDF). Thompson opposes amending the Constitution to declare that all human beings, born and unborn, are legal “persons” under the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment. He says, “I thought Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided,” but apparently he doesn’t think that the problem with it was that it denied the personhood of unborn human beings. He prefers the approach of appointing “conservative” (for which read “anti-privacy”) judges to the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade and send the issue of abortion back to the states.

This is 100% backwards. This is what you do when you think abortion is a matter of sexual morality, not a matter of violence against a human being.

I’ve spent a lot of time over the years defending pro-lifers against the charge that the question of fetal personhood is only a smokescreen, and we really just want to control women. In my experience, most grassroots pro-lifers really do believe that the unborn child is a human person with a right to life. But what to do when the premier anti-abortion organization throws its weight behind a candidate who apparently doesn’t believe it?

Maybe my experience is atypical. Or maybe our supposed leadership is failing to represent the majority of pro-lifers again.